Danzy wrote: » Without wiping out amm bees how will this theoretical programme of breeding work? The theory may be correct but open breeding will always be a problem. Reality will be the challenge to theory.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Preserving/improving amm if taken seriously would rely on controlled mating. Gbbg/nihbs have not made any serious efforts in this area. 100 years ago hives were being hauled up to isolated mountain areas to improve carnica and buckfast. 100 years of breeding with all of the important production traits taken into account has made significant progress. Amm has sat still at best in this timeframe and so a gap has opened between it and the European breeds which is why the majority of beekeepers throughout north west Europe gave up on amm. The whole idea of working with a niche species is nice for those with a handful of hives but for any serious amount of hives you tire of amm faults after a while when you've no need at all to put up with them. I run a couple of hundred hives and there is no issue with buckfast or carnica becoming aggressive in amm crosses. It's a myth despite what your link might say. If they controlled the hybridization they would have seen that the bad amm genes simply start to show up with the more amm added (not saying there's not good amm genes, just as you go further along chance makes it more likely for the bad to get their chance). If amm is to be conserved it should be done in the same way as every other breed of agricultural importance has been. Controlled mating and creation of a pedigree. If it is really so deserving of conservation, to do anything less is an insult as it is the only way to guarantee with 100% its future bar of course DNA testing every single hive in the country and culling however many thousand that don't meet the right spec...
bpmurray wrote: » You clearly have a problem with protecting one of our native species. In any case, I follow the science, rather than the religion of beekeeping. Well bred Amm with little to no hybridisation are sweet to work with. Some of my hives are really, really docile, but some in an apiary which I assume is exposed to non-Amm drones, can become quite defensive. According to the scientific research (e.g. see link above), hybridisation is a major cause of defensiveness in all bees, Amm included. That famous hybrid, Buckfast, commonly becomes completely unmanageable by the F2 generation. It is normal for Buckfast fans to buy in new instrumentally inseminated queens every couple of generations and there are some who simply squish & replace their queens every year or two. There has been hybridisation in Ireland for years, from those that selfishly introduce new strains into an otherwise relatively pure area, and it is this that NIHBS is trying to avoid. And yes, the Amm in these areas become cross. As for no work being done on Amm, then I suppose you have never heard of BIBBA, the Galtee Bee Breeding Group, NIHBS? Compare that to Buckfast - Bro. Adam would turn in his grave if he saw what his concoction had become - the modern Buckfast bears little resemblance to the original hybrids he produced, although I suppose the concept of breeding to specific traits without reference to lineage does follow his goals. In the UK, practically all bees are hybridised with the exceptions of the Amm pockets in Cornwall and Colonsay, with help from Irish Amm. In the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, again Irish Amm have boosted their attempts to rebuild the northern European populations of the almost extinct Amm. I really don't understand your anger at the idea that it's good to preserve a native animal, nor your denial, in the face of all the evidence, that hybridisation really is a problem, not only for Amm but for all bees, resulting in increased defensiveness and increased swarming. BTW, I have nothing against other bee types - there should be room for us all. For example, I would consider siting Amm hives in Leitrim as being unconscionable because of the damage they would do to open mating of Buckfast. Similarly, I think bringing non-Amm into areas that are 100% Amm is equally appalling - that definitely should not happen.
bpmurray wrote: » The import ban prevents hybridisation of our native Amm. It is this source of rather pure Amm that others across Europe want, not a hybridised version. If we allow our native Amm to be mixed with all the other subspecies, we will have lost yet another native species. And, of course, as you probably know, hybridised bees tend to become vicious a**holes. Ask those who insist on importing bees: how often do they have to import new queens because their current hives have become unmanageable? Most Amm beekeepers actively participate in a queen breeding program, open mating their queens. This would have to stop because of imports, and only II would produce queens that are sufficiently docile to be manageable.
Galvium Irredentum wrote: » So Irish amm is being exported all over Europe? How can you thus argue for an import ban?
All (and I mean every single one!) of the diseases attacking bees, including acarine, varroa, nosema, etc. have all been imported from the UK. Under no circumstances can imports of bees be defended as being rational or sane.
Nothing, really. However, this source of Amm is pretty much unique - Ireland is the go-to source for Amm in all these areas that are trying to reintroduce their native bee, in Germany, Poland, Sweden, UK, etc. The original bee in these areas was Amm but successive imports of Carnolians, Italians, etc. has meant that they have been almost wiped out all across Northern Europe.
bpmurray wrote: » Incorrect. The markers were not present in other samples from other populations - they really are unique to the Irish population. The lab in Switzerland that confirmed their findings did not find these markers in other bees.
brianmc wrote: » I find this conversation very interesting. I'm on the fence in my own mind. For the record, the bees I keep are reasonably AMMish but in reality are probably currently "local mongrels".
Firstly, Jack Hassett's research showed traits common to a population of Irish AMM that aren't seen in other areas. The popular conclusion is that this indicates genuine "Native Irish" honeybees. I don't know enough nor have I read enough to answer my questions... How do we know that these markers reflect something historic? Could they reflect the efforts of several closely related breeding groups selecting stock over decades rather than something centuries old?
Secondly, if we accept that these markers indicate something of historic and unique Irish origin - what does it mean? Why is this something worthy of protecting/saving? What do these markers really indicate? Are we talking the equivalent of red hair and freckles? Something more? Something less?
Most suited to our environment...? This conclusion is derived from the assumption that evolution will have caused these native bees to adapt to suit our local climate. That seems a solid argument but it should be acknowledged that evolution's only goal is survival of the species - not honey production, docility or resilience to diseases and pests introduced at the rate at which we humans introduce them these days.
I have to think that the bees most suited to honey production and docility are much more likely to be the bees that have been raised and selected in highly organised breeding programs with pedigree registers, instrumental insemination and/or island mating. To think that the small population of breeders in Ireland with a small breeding stock can keep up with that using open mating doesn't make sense to me.
Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee?
Again, I'm on the fence. It may sound like I'm arguing for hybrids and imports but I think my points above are only coming from the perspective of the under-discussed side. These are my genuine questions that I would love to know the answers to. For now I'm defaulting toward preserve but I would love more genuine science and answers.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » It has been normal across much of the country for yellow bands to appear from time to time even in the absence of new introductions. Doesn't make one bit of difference in the vast majority of cases, only it gives some beekeepers a reason to find fault with the bees.
Had they been as black as coal, their weaknesses would not have been given the same scrutiny unless they were proper nasty. At which stage it would have been decided that they must've been hybridized anyway as "pure amm are docile", which is total nonsense as pure strains of any race can be anywhere on the scale from bastards to angels. It's constant selection and culling of bad genetics that keeps bees docile.
Amm is only a resource IF it is improved, 95%+ of beekeepers in Europe wouldn't want it if given the choice because it has so many downsides that aren't realized by those who have no experience beyond amm. Nobody in Ireland is truly interested in improving amm.
They're interested in controlling what kind of bee is kept in an area and in having a market for queens+nucs while continuing on as they have been doing for years.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Those markers that were found in the Jack hasset study were simply markers that had not previously been found. There is nothing at all to say that they are not present in the rest of the amm population and just haven't been found yet. They are unlikely to result in any noticeable traits by the beekeeper as the main traits such as prolificness, swarminess etc are very complex and would need more than what was found. Agree with your other points
yosemitesam1 wrote: » They have little chance of making much of an impact unless things are really scaled up and a lot more effort put in.
wexfordman2 wrote: » There is a research apiary in Waterford where I beleive this is being done, with the aim of breeding Varoa tolerant bees, with some very knowledgeable people involved, not just in bee keeping but genetics. I also bele8ve nui galway are doing similar research
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Who is doing that (with sister queens as drone mothers), I'm not aware of any who do that even without using sister queens as drone mothers.
wexfordman2 wrote: » It would be a bit hypocritical only for the fact that its not the case, there are breeding programs which are aimed at improving the ability to cope with varoa for example, so honey production and docility is not the only aim (albeit that may be the aim of many bee keepers irrespective of strain).
victor8600 wrote: » Nah, what you are saying is true in a general case, for most beekeepers cannot control their environment. But a dedicated breeder can move to one of the many secluded areas of Ireland, set up a colony of 50-100 hives and swamp the area with drones. You are then 99% guaranteed to get drones from the colony. And then you work towards improving the characteristics of the whole colony by selective breeding and aggressive culling of queens from hives that show less than desired traits. Easy peasy. You do not flip one coin, you flip 1000 coins and you get your predictable result.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » That results in a situation whereby you don't know what you're breeding from when you graft from a queen you have "selected" and you have absolutely no idea what she goes on to mate with....That is most certainly not breeding, it's flipping a coin and hoping for the best....
brianmc wrote: » I find this conversation very interesting. I'm on the fence in my own mind. For the record, the bees I keep are reasonably AMMish but in reality are probably currently "local mongrels". I wouldn't like to act to the detriment of genuine attempts to promote/improve AMM if the plans have genuine merit and so (certainly for now) I stick with what I have. The questions though, for me... Firstly, Jack Hassett's research showed traits common to a population of Irish AMM that aren't seen in other areas. The popular conclusion is that this indicates genuine "Native Irish" honeybees. I don't know enough nor have I read enough to answer my questions... How do we know that these markers reflect something historic? Could they reflect the efforts of several closely related breeding groups selecting stock over decades rather than something centuries old? Secondly, if we accept that these markers indicate something of historic and unique Irish origin - what does it mean? Why is this something worthy of protecting/saving? What do these markers really indicate? Are we talking the equivalent of red hair and freckles? Something more? Something less? Most suited to our environment...? This conclusion is derived from the assumption that evolution will have caused these native bees to adapt to suit our local climate. That seems a solid argument but it should be acknowledged that evolution's only goal is survival of the species - not honey production, docility or resilience to diseases and pests introduced at the rate at which we humans introduce them these days. I have to think that the bees most suited to honey production and docility are much more likely to be the bees that have been raised and selected in highly organised breeding programs with pedigree registers, instrumental insemination and/or island mating. To think that the small population of breeders in Ireland with a small breeding stock can keep up with that using open mating doesn't make sense to me. Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee? Again, I'm on the fence. It may sound like I'm arguing for hybrids and imports but I think my points above are only coming from the perspective of the under-discussed side. These are my genuine questions that I would love to know the answers to. For now I'm defaulting toward preserve but I would love more genuine science and answers.
victor8600 wrote: » While there is some interesting thought in your post, this particular assertion is nonsense. I personally know people who are very much interested in improving AMM characteristics and produce 100s of selected AMM queens each year.
brianmc wrote: » Finally, (I think), if it is important to preserve the native Irish honeybee, is it not hypocritical to constantly select stocks to improve docility and honey production? When is a native Irish honeybee not a native Irish honeybee? .
bpmurray wrote: » Edit: I forgot to comment on the title of the OP. NIHBS (the Native Irish Honeybee Society) is an organisation that focuses on the preservation of the native bee. They work with the other beekeepers associations and educational institutions and government departments to help try to ensure that this critical natirual resource isn't harmed or diluted. Many associations across the country support NIHBS so I understand why their name was used as the title, but the reality is that it's the local association that has been talking to you, not NIHBS, so don't blame them!
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Nobody in Ireland is truly interested in improving amm.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » They're interested in controlling what kind of bee is kept in an area and in having a market for queens+nucs while continuing on as they have been doing for years.
bpmurray wrote: » It's a pity that the reasoning for the support for the native bee wasn't explained. So, let's look at the reasoning: The Native Irish honey bee really is a thing - there are those who say it isn't but recent research by Jack Hassett and others in Limerick University (and Cork and Galway) shows that Irish bees really do have a unique DNA fingerprint. This bee is perfectly suited to Irish weather, plants and other circumstances, so it's the most efficient bee for here. When they are reasonably pure, they are docile and easy to manage. Today I found that one of my hives had turned into a bunch of evil screaming demons, and noticed that they had stripes. So some jerk has non-native bees locally and they have contaminated one of my hives, turning them vicious. If everyone around you has native bees, everything is rosy and easy to manage. If they don't, you're forced to buy in new queens every couple of years, or have to learn instrumental insemination since your queens can't be open mated, i.e. they can't mate the natural way without producing nasty bees. There are other groups across Europe trying to re-establish populations of the dark bee. Ireland is the last source of pure Apis melifera melifera, so it's critical that we prevent this from being destroyed by introducing non-native bees. All (and I mean every single one!) of the diseases attacking bees, including acarine, varroa, nosema, etc. have all been imported from the UK. Under no circumstances can imports of bees be defended as being rational or sane. As to the Donedeal thing, the fear is that nobody is looking at the bees for you. When you buy them through your local association, they will have been checked for quality, docility, disease, etc. Since you admit you're inexperienced, why would you know what the bees really are like? You could be introducing foulbrood into your local association, or hybrid bees that will destroy hives for miles around you. So while it may sound like a religious dogma to you, there really are good sound reasons for preferring one bee over another. BTW, those who prefer Buckfast bees in Leitrim or West Cork have pretty much the same arguments: they are fighting to protect their open mating areas from contamination by other bee subspecies for fear of turning their bees nasty. The idea is that if you stick with one bee type in a particular area they will thrive, but if you mix, you end up with major problems. Edit: I forgot to comment on the title of the OP. NIHBS (the Native Irish Honeybee Society) is an organisation that focuses on the preservation of the native bee. They work with the other beekeepers associations and educational institutions and government departments to help try to ensure that this critical natirual resource isn't harmed or diluted. Many associations across the country support NIHBS so I understand why their name was used as the title, but the reality is that it's the local association that has been talking to you, not NIHBS, so don't blame them!
wexfordman2 wrote: » You seem quite articulate and able to speak up, did you not query, question and push them on this ? If you were on a course, which you paid for, why would you not ask these questions?
